DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 4/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajaj et al. (US2018/0211514A1) in view of Crick et al. (GB2586283A).
Re claims 1 and 17, Bajaj et al. teach detecting a first signal from a sensor (first clean air voltage from a light sensor, paragraphs 36-37) from a life safety device (i.e. smoke detector), the first signal to represent a first baseline (i.e. first signal drift value) for a characteristic (i.e. voltage) of the sensor; detecting a second signal (i.e. second clean air voltage) from a sensor, the second signal to represent a second baseline (second signal drift value) for the sensor (Abstract; Fig. 7); comparing the second baseline to the first baseline to determine a first measure of sensor drift for the sensor (paragraph 44 teaches comparing the first signal drift value to the first signal drift threshold that depends on the second signal drift value and comparing the second signal drift value to a second signal-drift threshold that depends on the first signal drift value). Specifically, the limitations are met since the first and second signals are compared to each other to measure the sensor drift. In reference to comparing the first measure sensor drift to a threshold, applicant is directed to paragraphs 33, 38, 40, and 44 which teaches comparing the first and second signals to first and second reference voltages (i.e. thresholds). Fig. 7 further teaches that depending upon the drift values of the first and second signals, the operational state of the smoke detector is determined.
Bajaj et al. fail to teach initiating a self-cleaning session when the first measure of the sensor drift exceeds the first drift threshold. Crick et al. tach a smoke detector and determining the operation of the detector and the level of contamination of the sensor directly or on the sensor. The abstract teaches that the baseline of the sensor maybe adjusted for drift depending on the contamination of the sensor. Pages 12-13 teaches measuring the level of contamination on the sensor over time to identify drift in the sensor signal. When drift is detected, the sensor baseline can be adjusted to offset the effects of such drift. If the level of contamination indicates excessive drift above a threshold value in the sensor signal by the gradual buildup of contamination, the smoke detector is cleaned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Bajaj et al. to include initiating a self-cleaning session, as taught by Crick et al., once the sensor drift exceeds a threshold value. Re claim 10, refer to paragraph 15 of Bajaj et al. which teaches photoelectric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 18-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 2-9 and 18-26. Re claims 2 and 198, the prior art fails to teach comparison the third baseline to the first baseline to determine a second measure of the sensor drift for the characteristic of the sensor and terminating the self-cleaning session when the second measure of the sensor drift is less than a second drift threshold. Claims 3-4 allowable based on the dependency to that of claim 2. Re claims 5 and 19, the prior art fails to teach comparing the third baseline to the first baseline to determine a second measure of the sensor drift for the characteristic of the sensor and initiating a second self-cleaning cycle when the second measure of the sensor drift is more than a second drift threshold. The prior art further fails to teach the limitations of claim 6 and 23, and claims 7-9, 24-26 which depend on claims 6 and 23. Claim 20 is a combination of claims 6-8. Re claim 21, the prior art fails to teach the first drift threshold represents a first self-cleaning session and the second drift threshold represents the first self-cleaning session was successful and the second drift threshold is different from the first by a specified quantity. Claim 22 is allowable in view of its dependency on claim 21.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Meah et al. teach a fire detector drift compensation. Culp et al. teach cleaning or replacing the smoke detector based on drift.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights